The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a boundary dispute order. The court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and declined to interfere.
Petitioner directed to approach the Board of Revenue for revision under Section 210.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37982
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4405 of 2024
Petitioner :- Nirankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Vijay Kumar
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner, the petitioner still has remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 210 of the Code, 2006.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024 A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere in a boundary dispute where a revision remedy exists under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 210 bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nirankar
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow
Other Respondents
Alok Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
